Allahabad High Court
HASHIMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application was allowed and the applicant was released on personal bond and sureties.
Summary
The applicant, Hashim, was arrested in a case under Sections 69, 115(2) and 352 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly entering into a corporeal relationship with a woman on a false promise of marriage and later refusing to marry her. The applicant contended that he was already married to the woman, that there was no evidence of deception, and that the allegations were an attempt to criminalise a consensual relationship. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the charges. The Court noted Supreme Court precedents that a false promise of marriage does not amount to rape and that delayed allegations without evidence may indicate abuse of process. While refraining from commenting on the merits, the Court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties with conditions. The bail was granted subject to compliance with standard conditions and without prejudice to the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite charges under Sections 69, 115(2) and 352 IPC.
- Whether the alleged false promise of marriage and consensual relationship constitute an offence of rape or other serious crime.
- Whether the allegations represent an abuse of the criminal process warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 352, 69
Subjects
- bail
- false promise of marriage
- consensual relationship
- rape
- POCSO
- abuse of criminal process
- IPC Sections 69,115(2),352
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25430 of 2025
Hashim
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Prakash Dubey, Nafees Ahmad,
Prashant Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Tyagi, G.A., Kapil Tyagi
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 113 out of 262)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Anand Prakash Dubey and Sri Nafees Ahmad, learned
counsels for the applicant and Sri Ashish Tyagi, learned counsel for the
informant as well as Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned AGA for the State
and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 275 of 2025, under Sections
69, 115(2), 352 of BNS, Police Station - Jani, District Meerut, during the
pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established
corporeal relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage
and had later on refused to comply with the said promise.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant and the
victim both are married. There is no clinching evidence to suggest that the
applicant misled the victim from the beginning. The informant has
converted a failed consensual physical relationship into a criminal case. It
is also stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The
applicant is languishing in jail since 11.06.2025 and he is ready to
cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 25430 of 2025
2
6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant
have vehemently opposed the bail application.
7. The Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another, 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad
vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886, has
stated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person
on the false promise to marry cannot be termed as rape.
8. Recently, the Supreme Court in Kunal Chatterjee vs. State of West
Bengal & Ors. (Special Leave petition (Crl.) No. 7004 of 2025)
reiterating the aforesaid viewpoint stated that delayed allegations of
consensual physical relations, chiefly when based on a failed promise to
marry and unsupported by evidence, do not constitute rape or grounds
under POCSO if the circumstances indicate abuse of criminal process and
quashed the proceedings to prevent misuse of law.
9. This Court has avoided expressing its opinion as the case hinges on
whether the applicant's promise of marriage was genuine or false and
whether the physical relationship was consensual or not. It is for the Trial
Court to draw a conclusion which will depend on the evidence presented
before it and its interpretation as per law.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and
taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.,
2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement,
2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for
bail. The bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant- Hashim, be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.
BAIL No. 25430 of 2025
3
12. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 2, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…